I've always found B.R. Myers a very interesting voice in Korea studies. His idea that North Korea is not a Marxist-Leninist or a Stalinist state but an ethnonational-socialist country patterned more after Imperial Japan than Soviet Union really struck a nerve when I first read it. It was jarring but also very insightful. It was certainly a shock to my subconscious sense of ethno-nationalism that admittedly informed my analytical paradigm and hermeneutics when it came to Korea.

In that sense, I found his recent blog posting on President Moon Jae-in's recent address commemorating August 15th especially provocative. For those who might not be aware, Koreans celebrate August 15th, 1945 as Independence Day because that was the day that Imperial Japan surrendered to the U.S. Myers writes, "I've always found it odd that South Koreans would want to celebrate their transition from colonial rule to military occupation… It says a lot about South Koreans' lack of identification with their republic, a problem relevant to discussion of the nuclear crisis, that they should still consider August 15, 1945 worthier of commemoration than August 15, 1948, the date the holiday was created to honor…"

The actual date that the Republic of Korea was founded should seem a simple matter of historical fact. But it's not. Historically, it is true that the official government of the Republic of Korea was established on August 15, 1948 with Syngman Rhee as the president. But is that the same thing as the founding of a nation?

In his address, Moon references 1919 as the year in which the Republic of Korea (South Korea) was founded. In fact, the preamble to the constitution of the Republic of Korea reads thus: "We, the people of Korea, proud of a resplendent history and traditions dating from time immemorial, upholding the cause of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea born of the March First Independence Movement of 1919 and the democratic ideals of the April Nineteenth Uprising of 1960 against injustice."

Note that the preamble specifically mentions two dates from which the ROK derives its legitimacy and mandate to govern. Especially relevant to this debate is the first date of March 1, 1919, when thousands of ordinary Koreans rose up to protest the Japanese usurpation of their country. This resulted in a country-wide crackdown by the Japanese authorities on independence activists and led to the establishment of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in Shanghai.

Myers has a problem with this narrative. He writes, "With those and other words, the president declared himself the heir to a nationalist and not a constitutional-democratic tradition, a man who will rule more in the spirit of the exile government that strove to liberate the minjok(Korean ethnic people) than of the republic that joined America in resisting North Korean aggression.

According to Myers, it is this sense of "minjok" that warps South Korea's sentiments and approach to North Korea since South Korea views North Korea as part of the same "minjok." Despite the horrific Korean War, there is a palpable sense of common ethnic identity that permeates through the collective psyche of the South Korean people when dealing with North Korea. The fear is that South Korea would choose "minjok" over liberal, democratic principles when it comes to any grand bargains with the North that would lead to reunification.

Admittedly, I never thought of the concept of "minjok" being in competition with the survival of South Korea's liberal democracy. It's not inconceivable that those two values might chafe against one another at some point as the Koreas lurch toward eventual reunification. However, today's Korea (both North and South) is a product of history. As such, ethno-nationalism that exists in both countries – although modulated through democratic institutions in the South while cultivated to fascist status to serve a cult of personality in the North – is a reactive cultural trait that kept the Korean people cohesive and intact through huge upheavals in the 20th century. This is more than skin deep. It goes to the bone.

If Myers is right and "minjok" and the republic are at odds, wouldn't this mean that South Korea has to give up its vision of reunification. If North Korea is just another country, then it would mean a conquest, not reunification, to rule over all of Korea, wouldn't it? And it would also mean that North Koreans are just another people, not real Koreans. North Korea is no longer the crazy uncle living in the attic. Turns out that he's not related to them at all.

In other words, the question then becomes, "Can South Koreans give up their sense of collective ethno-identity that includes the North Koreans and develop the distance to deal with North Korea as they would with another hostile, belligerent country? Can North Korea be just another country to South Korea?"

Jason Lim is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture. He has been writing for The Korea Times since 2006. Reach him at jasonlim@msn.com, facebook.com/jasonlimkoreatimes or @jasonlim2012.